Subjectivity versus Objectivity


And what do you mean by “accomodate people”, Jerkey?

I am a Subjective-Objectivist, as there must exist something that is not a person nor the experience of any person residing in the external world, but given that existence only appears in the form of persons and that which persons experience, this “thing” is probably just the material making up persons and their experiences, as opposed to something that is not subjective experience in the least.

I’m both in a particular way. The only objective truth I’m aware of is the presence of my subjective reality. The fact that (my) experience seems to be taking place is an objective fact from my standpoint, similar to the cogito with a few caveats that are worth mentioning. The second form of objectivity is actually an overlay onto subjectivity. This idea that there is stuff “out there” is of course an idea that is subserviant to your subjectivity. You get a ton of reductio ad absurdum even from distinguished philosophy professors so I expect it here, too. But if we are really being honest and brave we must admit to ourselves that subjectivity is all you know of the universe, and that your mind might in fact be the universe. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

Well, that’s a belief, anyway, one that might be true or false for all one knows but cannot be proven one way or the other due to the inaccessibility of the external world.

All due respect, I have discovered that it’s not a good idea to claim a belief as absolute, irrefutable fact–particularly beliefs about the nature of the external world.

Beyond this, yeah, subjectivity is all we know of the universe.

Phenomenal Graffiti

It wasn’t my aim to state a belief just an observation. I have to formulate my hypotheses of reality based on only sense data, thoughts, logic, emotion and word games. This has led me to an observation that this is all we encounter, and it’s takes place in our brain or mind. it’s best to tell yourself there is an objective world outside your mind because if you don’t do that it will suck for you. But you have no logical reason to think that there is such a world or that even if there was you’d live in it as opposed to living in your mind. That’s a problem with having a mind. I liken it to being at a movie engrossed in a story and suddenly becoming aware of the row of seats and the little lights that line the aisle and the facts that movies are actors on a set. The story becomes flat and meaningless and you can’t get into it. However this is a bad thing, and you need to let yourself get lost in the movie and enjoy it. The best philosophy is one that lets you do this. It is pragmatic to filter out that which doesn’t support objective reality. Just eat your popcorn and enjoy the damn movie. Get some milk duds while you’re at it. To think brilliantly and correctly is to eventually break your soul and Shanghai it. Escaping from the event horizon of a black hole is hard but can be done. We are human and we are so good at delusion.

But if the only thing that exists is a person’s mind, and the mind is not a construct of objective, non-person flotsam and jetsam in the external world, is the mind eternal, or did it magically pop into existence from previous non-existence with all its absurd bells and whistles attached?

At some point you have to ask that same question about any base system you decide to believe in, be it the universe, or even a creator of said universe. At some point there has to be a thing that either popped into existence or always was, and it will have some bells and whistles at the inception, and possibly have more as it persists and bounces off itself to create patterns. In any case, we can be objectivists all we want, but that’s an act of faith, and probably not a bad idea, to be honest. I believe in objective reality in the same way others believe in God. It’s a pragmatic leap of faith that pays genuine dividends. I don’t find any empirical or logical reason to believe in it, not nearly as much a priori evidence as we obviously have to believe in subjective reality. It amazes me when philosopher-shaped beings in my mind disagree with this word game but then I remind myself that they are after all classified as human and it’s a tough nut for most humans to withstand, self included, w/o going nuts. Thank God for the Peter Paul axiom .

You know, I can’t really argue against this. Actually, I believed the same until I embraced subjective objectivism in the form of mental particles in the external world. But empirically, I believe you’re right. One can have faith in the objective while observing the certainty of the subjective, with no proof, really, that the subjective—eternal or magically coming into existence from non-existence absurdly with bells and whistles with the ability to evolve and create external patterns of itself—is not the only thing in existence.

Bravo, it was like watching my younger self speak to the older.

What is your self-evaluation?

SUBJECTIVE: 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10
OBJECTIVE : 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10

[tab]Greetings from Spain:


Subjective 10

Objective 5

Ah, well if I’m right then it’s not “like” your younger self speaking to you. It literally is the case.

We should probably pick a new hobby.

To me this question is like asking if I believe more in mathematics or in geometry, which? :confused:

Although I do not know you very much, I guess that your self-evaluation is an honest one.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:


Thank you. It is. But in my view the objective can only be subjective, or the substance making up subjectivity.

Subjective 9 Objective 6

Subj 9
Obj 1

I don’t say the objective can only be subjective or the substance that makes it. The objective reality may possibly exist. I’m agnostic about it. Very similar to the atheist versus agnostic approach to God. I can’t abide wth an atheist who thinks God “can’t” exist. Just seems a bit extreme. Similarly I can’t bring myself to believe with certainty that objective reality isn’t a thing. There’s always that possibility.

Objective reality does exist but all interpretations of it are subjective even if they are fundamentally objective in them selves. So for example the laws
of physics are written in mathematical language which is a primarily deductive discipline but they are also an attempt by us to understand the Universe
The need to satisfy our curiosity is entirely subjective or emotional but the methods we use are fundamentally objective or logical [ science and math ]

If what you are asking here is, on a scale of one to ten, where are you subjectively and objectively, I would probably have to say more subjective thinking BUT hmmm I cannot even be sure about that. I am trying to learn to be more objective about things even though at times I do not like where that brings me… but still…

Wouldn’t you say though that depending on what the subject matter is and how we hold something in particular as being important and having meaning, we may fluctuate from the one to the other; because it is so important we may be more objective about it wanting to come to the truth of things, rather than just believing what we want because we need to - if that made sense. It might sound a bit paradoxical but…

So, who knows? Perhaps at times I am at an even keel but strive to lean more toward the objective. lol #-o

That is some awesome sky there.

X says: “I am more subjective than objective”.
By saying this, is X really “more subjective than objective”?

Y says: “I am more objective than subjective”.
By saying this, is Y really “more objective than subjective”?

And does “really” here really mean “objectively”?
Isn’t objectivity most similar to reality?

Also, what if X and Y are liars?
Would that not be similar to the Liar Paradox of the Cretan Epimenides who maintains that all Cretans lie.

[tab]Greetings from Spain: